"Is This Not Enough?": Asymmetries in Institutional Accountability and Collective Sensemaking in the Case of Canada's Algorithmic Visa Triage System

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.13071v1
• Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 08:55:28 GMT
• Title: "Is This Not Enough?": Asymmetries in Institutional Accountability and Collective Sensemaking in the Case of Canada's Algorithmic Visa Triage System
• Abstract summary: This paper examines how algorithmic accountability in Canada's visa system is articulated institutionally and experienced by applicants across borders.<n>We show that while institutional artifacts emphasize transparency, procedural safeguards, and bounded impacts, applicants engage in collective sensemaking to interpret opaque decisions.<n>We identify three asymmetries between how institutional accountability is structured and how people perceive the process.
• Score: 28.163187835238478
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper examines how algorithmic accountability in Canada's visa system is articulated institutionally and experienced by applicants across borders. We analyzed Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)'s Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) for the temporary resident visa (TRV) triage system using the algorithmic decision-making adapted for the public sector (ADMAPS) framework and analyzed Reddit discussions among applicants using a mixed-methods approach. We show that while institutional artifacts emphasize transparency, procedural safeguards, and bounded impacts, applicants engage in collective sensemaking to interpret opaque decisions, often relying on peer knowledge amid uncertainty. We identify three asymmetries between how institutional accountability is structured and how people perceive the process: epistemic asymmetry in access to decision logic, jurisdictional asymmetry in exposure shaped by geopolitical positioning, and temporal--relational asymmetry in how waiting and uncertainty are experienced. We emphasize why it is important to shift attention from institutional design to the uneven distribution of experiences with public-sector algorithmic governance. Together, these contributions demonstrate how algorithmic governance systems in the context of transnational migration produce structured asymmetries not captured by institutional disclosure frameworks, and how extending ADMAPS can account for those uneven translations of accountability.

Related papers

• AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation [48.55515767840701]
  "AI slop" is artifacts, hallucinated vulnerabilities, plausible but incorrect patches, and semantically repackaged bug reports.<n>This paper surveys the empirical evidence, identifies a unifying mechanism, and traces a path toward trustworthy triage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T11:48:38Z)
• Co-constructing sociotechnical AI governance: participatory system mapping using algorithm registers [0.6999740786886536]
  Algorithm registers have been championed as a means of providing transparency on the use of algorithms in public services.<n>Yet potential publics differ in their expectations of what should be made transparent and how.<n>It remains unclear how these instruments can represent the sociotechnical systems in which these algorithms are embedded.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T15:27:45Z)
• Validity, Reliability, and Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Regulation [2.588958866512272]
  Article argues that modern AI raises concerns of construct validity, confounding, representativeness, distribution shift, and fairness trade-offs.<n>We argue that inference should function as a precondition for proportionality assessment and deployment approval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T09:36:15Z)
• Beyond Benchmark Islands: Toward Representative Trustworthiness Evaluation for Agentic AI [45.21562889170875]
  We propose a systematic evaluation paradigm that characterizes agent trustworthiness over a scenario manifold.<n>The framework integrates four complementary components: static cognitive and policy analysis, (ii) interactive sandbox simulation, (iii) social-ethical alignment assessment, and (iv) a distribution-aware representative sampling engine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T08:51:33Z)
• COMPASS: The explainable agentic framework for Sovereignty, Sustainability, Compliance, and Ethics [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel multi-agent orchestration system designed to enforce value-aligned AI.<n>The framework comprises an Orchestrator and four specialised sub-agents addressing sovereignty, carbon-aware computing, compliance, and ethics.<n>By employing an LLM-as-a-judge methodology, the system assigns quantitative scores and generates explainable justifications for each assessment dimension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T20:14:35Z)
• Beyond the Checkbox: Strengthening DSA Compliance Through Social Media Algorithmic Auditing [7.686169912623941]
  Algorithmic platforms are required to comply with obligations concerning algorithmic transparency, user protection and privacy.<n>Little is known about current auditing practices and their effectiveness in ensuring such compliance.<n>Our analysis shows significant inconsistencies in methodologies and lack of technical depth when evaluating AI-powered systems.<n>We propose to employ algorithmic auditing to enhance the depth, scale, and independence of compliance assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T12:00:29Z)
• LLM-as-a-Judge: Rapid Evaluation of Legal Document Recommendation for Retrieval-Augmented Generation [40.06592175227558]
  This paper investigates a principled approach to evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems in legal contexts.<n>We find that traditional agreement metrics like Krippendorff's alpha can be misleading in the skewed distributions typical of AI system evaluations.<n>Our findings suggest a path toward scalable, cost-effective evaluation that maintains the precision demanded by legal applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T19:20:21Z)
• AI-Supported Platform for System Monitoring and Decision-Making in Nuclear Waste Management with Large Language Models [1.6795461001108096]
  This paper presents a multi-agent Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system that integrates large language models (LLMs) with document retrieval mechanisms.<n>The system ensures regulatory decisions remain factually grounded, dynamically adapting to evolving regulatory frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T20:29:53Z)
• The simulation of judgment in LLMs [32.57692724251287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in evaluative processes, from information filtering to assessing and addressing knowledge gaps through explanation and credibility judgments.<n>This raises the need to examine how such evaluations are built, what assumptions they rely on, and how their strategies diverge from those of humans.<n>We benchmark six LLMs against expert ratings--NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check--and against human judgments collected through a controlled experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• A Unified Causal Framework for Auditing Recommender Systems for Ethical Concerns [40.793466500324904]
  We view recommender system auditing from a causal lens and provide a general recipe for defining auditing metrics. Under this general causal auditing framework, we categorize existing auditing metrics and identify gaps in them. We propose two classes of such metrics:future- and past-reacheability and stability, that measure the ability of a user to influence their own and other users' recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T04:37:36Z)
• Formalising Anti-Discrimination Law in Automated Decision Systems [1.560976479364936]
  We introduce a novel decision-theoretic framework grounded in anti-discrimination law of the United Kingdom.<n>We propose the "conditional estimation parity" metric, which accounts for estimation error and the underlying data-generating process.<n>We apply our formalism to a real-world algorithmic discrimination case, demonstrating how technical and legal reasoning can be aligned to detect and mitigate unlawful discrimination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-29T10:59:21Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• System Cards for AI-Based Decision-Making for Public Policy [5.076419064097733]
  This work proposes a system accountability benchmark for formal audits of artificial intelligence-based decision-aiding systems. It consists of 56 criteria organized within a four-by-four matrix composed of rows focused on (i) data, (ii) model, (iii) code, (iv) system, and columns focused on (a) development, (b) assessment, (c) mitigation, and (d) assurance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-01T18:56:45Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.